GR 111343; (August, 1996) (Digest)
G.R. No. 111343 , August 22, 1996
ERNESTINO P. DUNLAO, SR., PETITIONER, VS. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL, AND LOURDES DU, RESPONDENTS.
FACTS
Petitioner Ernestino P. Dunlao, Sr., a licensed scrap iron dealer, was charged with violating the Anti-Fencing Law (P.D. No. 1612). The information alleged that on or about a week prior to October 25, 1986, in Davao City, he purchased and received dismantled farrowing crates made of GI pipes, valued at P20,000.00, knowing them to be stolen from Lourdes Farms, Inc. On October 25, 1986, employees of Lourdes Farms, accompanied by police officers, went to Dunlao’s business premises based on information that stolen properties were there. They found and identified the farrowing crates and GI pipes within his compound, which he subsequently surrendered.
The Regional Trial Court convicted Dunlao, sentencing him to imprisonment. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision. Dunlao appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing the prosecution failed to prove he purchased the items or knew they were stolen, and that he possessed them in good faith as a temporary custodian after they were offered for sale by unidentified men who never returned.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming petitioner’s conviction for violation of the Anti-Fencing Law.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. Under P.D. No. 1612, fencing is defined as buying, receiving, or possessing any article of value which the person knows, or should know, to have been derived from robbery or theft. The law establishes a presumption of fencing from mere possession of stolen goods. The Court found Dunlao failed to rebut this presumption.
The Court clarified that intent to gain (animus furandi) need not be proven for crimes punishable by special laws like the Anti-Fencing Law, which are considered mala prohibita. For such acts, the sole inquiry is whether the law was violated. Here, Dunlao’s possession of the recently stolen items, positively identified by the farm’s employee, gave rise to the statutory presumption. His claim of acting in good faith as a temporary custodian was deemed unsubstantiated and insufficient to overcome the presumption, especially given the circumstances and his failure to ascertain the sellers’ legitimacy. The Court also found the P20,000.00 valuation of the stolen items, as stated in the information, to be credible and sustained the penalty imposed, with an order for indemnification.